Tibetan helmet

[endeavour192]

Hello,
I baught this helmet when i was in Lhasa (Tibet) in 1987.



I just wanted to know if it is an antique tibetan helmet (18e or 19e century), or if it is a fake ?
Best regards

[Gavin Nugent]

Short answer endeavour192, it is a modern helmet, despite what some very reputable arms and armour auction houses and some of the big three international names write about the type.

Gavin

[Oliver Pinchot]

Agree with Gavin, it is a modern copy.

[endeavour192]

Thank you both for your quick answer !

And what about this buthanese sword ?

[Gavin Nugent]

The sword looks much better but without full disclosure of the blade I could not confirm as the art of sword making is still carried through to today...it does however show nice age patina.

Regards

Gavin

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by endeavour192

I just wanted to know if it is an antique tibetan helmet (18e or 19e century), or if it is a fake ?

In addition to the opinion above, I'll add that the lamellar neck-guard is laced incorrectly. Not just a little wrong, but completely wrong.

[kronckew]

bhutan swords are still part of the national dress, the king wears his frequently on state occasions. makes it harder to date them as they are actively being traditionally made as i type.

the king:

[kronckew]

also, the swords come in various lengths and grades. my 'villager' model:

[David R]

I had one of those, many years ago. I greatly regret letting it go, a very well made blade, very simply mounted.

[dennee]

That's a baanmok, a Lepcha knife from Sikkim. There are similarities to the working knives of Bhutan.

I have often wondered if the baanmok blades of the fullered type were made by Nepalese smiths.

[kronckew]

you are correct,

found this:

Originally Posted by denee

The knife or short sword is the traditional "ban" of the Lepcha people, who principally came to live in remoter, forested valleys in Sikkim, but were found in Bhutan as well and across the Nepal border. Although it frequently appears as "Bhutanese," it is distinct (in length, blade shape and composition, scabbard and decoration) from the typical arms of the ethnically Tibetan Bhutias who migrated into the area and became the majority (at least before the influx of a great number of Nepalis to the area). I believe that Lord Egerton identifies such a piece as from Bhutan, as indeed it could have been made, used and collected there. A photographed example in his book is identified as from "Bhotan or Nepalese Frontier.".

[endeavour192]

Thank you. What about thoses helmets ? Is it real old (18-19e century) ?
It is isupposed to be tibetan and bhutanese helmet.





Endeavour192, The posting of items currently at auction is strictly against forum rules.

Robert

[Timo Nieminen]

All the genuine ones I've seen are a bowl, with lamellar or textile defences hanging from it. The ones like this, with solid back and sides extended well below the front (or you could say that the front is cut-out for the eyes) have been fake. So I'd assume the left-hand (Tibetan) one to be fake.

The Bhutanese helmet looks genuine, as far as I can tell from the photo. Plausibly 19th century. The bowl could be older, with newer cloth.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by endeavour192

Thank you. What about thoses helmets ? Is it real old (18-19e century) ?
It is isupposed to be tibetan and bhutanese helmet.

With both being auctioned I would not comment on either.

Gavin

[endeavour192]

OK i understand !

[Gavin Nugent]

endeavour192,

If you want to view better Tibetan and Bhutan Helms, armour and arms, get yourself "Warriors of the Himalayas, rediscovering the arms and armor of Tibet" by Donald J LaRocca and "Bhutan, Mountain Fortress of the Gods", in particular the chapter within, "The Way to the Throne" by Francoise Pommaret.

Attached is one of mine that you may have seen?

Gavin

[Battara]

Since one of these items are from a current auction, this thread is closed.

[Battara]

Issues resolved. We can now continue.

If i understand right, true antique Tibetan helmets are insanely rare!

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Battara

Issues resolved. We can now continue.

If i understand right, true antique Tibetan helmets are insanely rare!

Here is a comparison between the helmet being discussed here and what appears to be an authentic one of the same type.

[endeavour192]

Yes thank you, i know "Warriors of the Himalayas, rediscovering the arms and armor of Tibet" by Donald J LaRocca and i met Françoise Pommaret this year during a trip in Bhutan.
Not easy to find real antiques helmets !

[Bob A]

While I live in complete ignorance of Tibetan helmets, I'd have to say that to my uneducated eye, there are anomalies that lead me to doubt that the helmet in question is of significant age.

The improper lacing of the plates is apparent, but could be excused as an inept reassembly after having dismantled the helmet for "restoration".

The designs on the bowl of the helmet appear rather fresh, and the riveting seems modern. It seems to lack any sort of patina stemming from use.

All that said, while it may not be new, it seems to be satisfactorily Tibetan, given the source. "Fake" is a term I'd only use if an object was deliberately misidentified for larcenous purpose; the artifact is what it is, and does not seem to lie, or to bear deliberate false witness about itself. That said, I have no knowledge about how it may have been represented at an auction site.

[Timo Nieminen]

One might be tempted to attribute the mis-lacing to bad restoration, but it's the standard lacing on this type of helmet. It's how they make them in the first place.

Most of these helmets are sold as antiques. They appear to be made with that intent. I'm happy to call them fakes.

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

One might be tempted to attribute the mis-lacing to bad restoration, but it's the standard lacing on this type of helmet. It's how they make them in the first place.

Most of these helmets are sold as antiques. They appear to be made with that intent. I'm happy to call them fakes.

My guess regarding the lacing was that the plate overlapping was done opposite the way I would expect - and the way that it exists on the other helmet illustrated. Rather disturbing that the maker should have been so clueless.

I bow to your experience and expertise regarding seller's intent. Caveat emptor, as ever.

[Timo Nieminen]

Having seen many of these offered for sale over the years, I've wondered the same thing. Doesn't seem like it would be too hard to lace them correctly. But every single one I've seen has been laced this way (the wrong way). I don't know whether they all come out of the same workshop, of whether they're copies of each other by different makers.

(I haven't been counting, but it's surely more than a dozen I've seen.)

[kronckew]

tibetan cavalry -note lamellae are laced and overlapped to guard from strikes from below. as is the properly laced helmet posted earlier. infantry lamellar armour would be laced the other way, more like roof tiles, to protect from blows from above. lamella are overlapped to increase the metal and to support the lamella next to them - distributing the force from a blow, not side by side which only presents one thickness & has weak points (gaps) at the butted edges.

[Timo Nieminen]

However, in practice, lamellar worn by infantry is still laced the same way, with the same kind of overlap (lower lamellae on the outside of the upper lamellae). Scale armour, whether worn by cavalry or infantry, overlaps the other way. Which suggests that the direction of overlap isn't a big factor in the protection.

That there is overlap matters. An arrow coming in will have to get through, typically, 2 to 4 layers of iron/steel to get through the armour.

[estcrh]

Here is the type of helmet worn by Tibetan warriors in the later periods, the type originally posted here for discussion would be from a much older period and would show its age.